With regard to the economic interactions of citizens, the state has the role of an arbiter, which has to ensure that the actions of the actors follow the rules and ensure legal certainty in order to enable companies and private individuals to plan their activities seriously.
What a referee is not allowed to do is to change the previously established rules to the detriment of one party during a game or even to actively intervene in the game itself and score a goal or prevent a shot on goal.
The policies of many EU governments, as well as those of the EU Commission and the ECB, increasingly contradict these basically trivial rules. If politicians and the central bank – driven by the zeitgeist religion of “climate neutrality” – actively intervene in economic life by imposing burdens and obligations on certain sectors while arbitrarily favoring others, then this is extremely worrying. This is all the more true when the interventions follow ideological rather than fact-oriented considerations.
A current example of this ominous trend is the setting of technically unachievable emission targets for internal combustion engines, while at the same time electric vehicles are – contrary to the facts – classified as “zero emissions” and massively promoted both through direct subsidies and tax measures.
The fact that the enthusiasm of the public for electric cars – despite the drastic market distortion in their favor – is within manageable limits (so far less than two percent of the domestic vehicle fleet is electric), is proof that politics is clearly against the market and thus against the interests of the citizens is made.
As long as cars with electric drives, the sight of which does not cause eye cancer and which actually deserve to be called automobiles, cost from 40,000 euros upwards; as long as a kilogram of battery can move an electric cart just one kilometer (a modern diesel engine will take a medium-sized car 20 km on one liter of fuel); as long as the charging times for the batteries are at a level that makes every long journey a time-consuming project; As long as the questions of the necessary electricity production and a nationwide charging infrastructure are not resolved, this technology is simply not suitable for individual mass mobility.
Since the problems mentioned are obvious and not even hidden from the members of the EU Commission and national governments, the question arises as to the agenda behind the one-sided partisanship. Because one thing is certain: the average consumer cannot afford cars for 40,000 euros and more – especially considering that a battery, which makes up the majority of the cost of an electric car, is exhausted in our part of the world after a maximum of eight years and the vehicle is therefore considered a economic total loss is to be written off. Citizens who depend on their vehicles for work (e.g. commercial travelers) cannot spend a lot of valuable time at charging stations every day – and if they do, then only at the price of reduced productivity. It is also unlikely that it is about promoting a hobby of eccentric high earners. So what’s behind it?
Could it perhaps be the goal of the one-sided electromobility-promoting policy to cover a decisive stage on the way to the abolition of motorized individual freedom? Wouldn’t the dream of a nomenklatura based on Orwell’s dystopia “1984” of the end of individual mobility of citizens come a great deal closer if everyone could only travel by cargo bike or in mass transport that would then be equipped with facial recognition software?
No, that’s it of course not! In truth, the political elites are only concerned with preventing rising sea levels and saving polar bears. Certainly. And anyone who claims otherwise is a conspiracy theorist and/or a paranoid nutcase.